great comments below. You could separate it into 2 segments. One portion of users not having used a website in a particular category and the other bucket being

great comments below. You could separate it into 2 segments. One portion of users not having used a website in a particular category and the other bucket being folks that had used such websites before. Let's take online travel websites as an example. In both cases people had a good experience using the website which in turn was a combination of great design including crispness & information architecture, variable font sizes, great presentation of the most important information, a lot of user empathy, generally not making the user think and not surprising the user, heat maps of which areas of a webpage users are likely to look at, etc. The technical aspects of it included, smaller webpage sizes, tons of caching by abstracting away personalized portions of the webpage, and thereby caching close to 70-95% of the webpage in the browser, using a CDN, compression, reducing RTT, using distributed dns, not accessing the database for requests if possible, having as many static components as possible, use of persistent connections, caching url query strings, and all the things mentioned in Y! performance guidelines. For folks that had never used an online travel website, they compared the speed of a website to the ones they regularly used like google, rediff, yahoo, etc. For folks that had used an online travel website, the comparison was with the competition and how much better you were with the above aspects.